Which Groups *DO NOT* Deserve a Seat on the PPA Board?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And we all know that FT and PS have close ties to PPA board members; if these folks are willing to continue working with the Shulmans and the Party "affiliate farms" why cant 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 2+2 believes that "these folks" and other things will become some of the "talking points" (to quote another post) of the opposition, and, in our opinion, these will be very effective talking points at that.

Let me state again that we have nothing against affiliate farms. We are now doing some of that ourselves. But we do think that having these groups on the PPA board has the potential to become a very big negative. Don't underestimate the viciousness of the anti-gambling forces.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

I too feel that the only way this issue could hurt is from retarding the effectiveness of the PPA to reach and ultimately speak for the larger poker community if not the ability to gain traction there.

We do not have to cater to the B&M's to gain a better grasp of the live poker community. As it is a direct appeal to the B&M industry to help us gain their might IMO be unsucessful.

The on-line community has and does see the better efforts of the recent activities of the PPA, but the "average" recreational player who used to inpart make up the larger group of former on-line players and fish, who beleive that on-line poker is illegal, unprofitable, and or rigged, see the PPA as both useless and ineffective.

There are much easier ways to reach this larger "natural market" than through the B&M's IMO.

So while I userstand the issue I feel resigniation is not the only answer to attempting to solve this issue.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

How can the companies who have the most to gain from legal, free online poker hurt the cause? Isn't that caving into our opponents?
D$D, you impress me as the ultimate pessimist. Have some faith, things are improving and the PPA has had some positive affect in DC, which is not easy to accomplish.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
How can the companies who have the most to gain from legal, free online poker hurt the cause? Isn't that caving into our opponents?
D$D, you impress me as the ultimate pessimist. Have some faith, things are improving and the PPA has had some positive affect in DC, which is not easy to accomplish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry from a political perspective I am always a pessimist. The better you plan and organize for the worst the better you are able capitalize on any portion of the better case senarios.

IMO you can always hope in your heart, but it has no place in political planning nor strategy.

I am sorry if I come off this way. I have just seen too many off the wall totally unexpected things happen and often change the course of many human event and even more so in politics.

What is the phrase? An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure....


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I multitable (either 4 $.05/$.1 NL or 2 $1.25 10 table tourneys) for an hour or so a day, congrats on your plan of making a site I would not enjoy playing on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with anyone multi-tabling to your hearts and bankrolls limits, BUT IMPO you're going to have to do it without all the hand histories and software aids.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you consider to be unusable aides?

I use PT for cash games, but only to records win/loss rate and study my old hands. I do have PAHUD as well, but rarely use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope it is no more effective than the mythical "hole card" spyware, but there is a HUD linked to a leased database currently being marketed. I will not post the name as I do not feel like assisting what I consider cheating.

But for around $25 a month you no longer have to take the time and expense to datamine any levels and build your own databases.

Given the value of the efforts from the datamines to expose the cheating in the recent scandals I have no idea how you put an end to the abortion of poker and still manage to keep an eye on the site operators. I would love to suggest regualtion would be a panecia but I have no such faith in a government run system with the combined effiency of the DMV and the "customer service" of the IRS.


D$D

[Richas]

You seem to have confused the regulation of competing private enterprises with a state run monopoly.

Legal, regulated, poker is not the same efficiency as the IRS it is a framework within which private firms can compete and players are protected (self set deposit limits, age verification, cash held in trust accounts, games fairness independently audited, easy legal deposits, mandatory account history information for the user, access to the courts in case of dispute.....)

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have confused the regulation of competing private enterprises with a state run monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. Perhaps it is simply my pessimism or scarcasm showing itself.

Given that Congress in general and your average Congressperson has much more understanding of monopolies than sucessfully run private business experience I have little faith in Congress to do the right thing by on-line poker.

I agree that there is enough profits in the economics of on-line poker even without any expansion to provide a good deal of new revenue and capture a wealth of uncaptured existing revenue for a sensible regulatory model to exist.

But having been on the Hill on this issue I've seen a few greedy $$ in the eyes of some on this issue, enough for some concern IMO.

On-line poker would not be the first golden goose nor cow that was killed from over production by over regualtion.


D$D

[pokerg1]

[ QUOTE ]
Can I pick more than 2 please?

[/ QUOTE ][/list]pick3

[DoTheMath]

Who should be on the board depends on whose interests the organization is promoting, on which issues the organization is confronting and on the knowledge, experience and connections that are needed to effectively promote those interests and address those issues.

What does the second 'P' in PPA stand for? We are talking here about the board of an organization called the Poker Players Allicance. Poker players have a number of interests in common with other Poker interest groups. For instance players, affiliates, and online site operators share concerns about the UIGEA, obtaining a carveout for online poker, etc. However, players also have some intersts in opposition to some of their allies on the foregoing issues, e.g. rake rates, market competition between sites, player protection, etc.

Some people seem to be viewing the question as: "who should be on the board of the Anti-UIGEA Alliance (AUA)?". If the PPA was renamed and repurposed as the AUA, perhaps there would be far fewer concerns about the makeup of the board. The fact that there really is no separate AUA seems to be at the root of many of the differences expressed in this thread.

A lack of clarity of interests and purpose seems to even confound OP:

[ QUOTE ]
... the composition of the PPA board ... in order to give it ... the best chance of success in general, and also to be assured of pursuing all of the broader range of goals that most rank and file members have, as opposed to primarily focusing on benefiting the business models of specific concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It would especially be enlightening if such reasoning included what a specific industry groups brings to the table that helps the cause of poker, and what it brings that harms the cause of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about promoting the goals of members, i.e. players, or are we talking about something more nebulous -" the cause of poker" - whatever that is?

If the PPA really is, as it claims [ QUOTE ]
... a nonprofit membership organization comprised of poker players and enthusiasts from around the United States who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game, ensure its integrity, and, most importantly, to protect poker players' rights.

[/ QUOTE ] then its board should not be made up primarily of people connected to organizations from whom player may need their rights protected - organizations which make money from players.

I don't buy the argument that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The enemy of my enemy could just as well be my enemy too, just one that finds our common enemy more of a threat at the moment. The enemy of my enemy is a temporary ally, but may not be a friend and is definitely someone distinct from me.

The history of the PPA Board membership reminds me of the fox guarding the henhouse. They are guarding us chickens from the wolves and bears, perhaps in order that we can get fattened up.

In a ideal world, there would be a PPA, and the PPA would be one partner in the AUA. Another partner would be the non-B&M Poker Industry Alliance (NBPIA). Another player in all this is the B&M industry. They would aoppear to be organized on another side of this issue - one that either keeps online play difficult, or positions themselves to become the key providers in the market.

A problem with this idealized view - each set of interest having their own organization - is that grass-roots organizations are notoriously difficult to form and to keep running over an extended period of time. Also, there are only so many people available for, and able to effectively perform, the roles of PPA board member and AUA board member. There may not be critical mass enough to maintain two organizations.

If there aren't enough resources to go around, you have to choose which goals are most important now, and concentrate on those. If that means working on poker's legal status, against the UIGEA, for a carveout, etc., are what is most important now, then focus your resources on that. Just don't make the claim that the organization with that purpose is soley made up of, and soley acting for, poker players. The danger in calling the AUA the PPA, and in having its board stacked with industry people is that once the PPA wins the current battles, its members may find that "their" organization is staffed by the enemy from the next battles.